It's Time To Revive Hypercard

HughPickens.com writes HyperCard, an application program and programming tool released for the Apple Macintosh in 1987, represented the 'computing for the people' philosophy that enabled users to go past the pre-built software that came on their machines, and to program and build software of their own. "Mac users could use Hypercard to build their own mini-programs to balance their taxes, manage sports statistics, make music – all kinds of individualized software that would be useful (or fun) for individual users." Now Jer Thorp writes that the end of HyperCard left a huge gap that desperately needs to be filled – a space for an easy to use, intuitive tool that will once again let average computer users make their own tools. According to Throp, this type of plain-language programming makes sense, particularly in an application that was designed specifically for non-programmers. "I find the largest concern for learners to be not with the conceptual hurdles involved in writing a program, but with obscure and confusing syntax requirements. I would love to be able to teach HyperTalk to my students, as a smooth on-road to more complex languages like JavaScript, Java or C++." By putting the tools of creation into the hands of the broader userbase, we would allow for the creation of ultra-specific personalized apps that, aside from a few exceptions, don't exist today."

HyperTalk wasn't just easy, it was also fairly powerful. Complex object structures could be built to handle complicated tasks, and the base language could be expanded by a variety of available external commands and functions (XCMDs and XFCNs, respectively), which were precursors to the modern plug-in. But ultimately, HyperCard would disappear from Mac computers by the mid-nineties, eclipsed by web browsers and other applications which it had itself inspired. The last copy of HyperCard was sold by Apple in 2004. "One thing that's changed in the intervening decades is that the hobbyist has largely gone by the wayside. Now you're either a user or a full-fledged developer, and the gulf is wider than ever," writes Peter Cohen. "There's really nothing like it today, and I think the Mac is lesser for it."

Comments

For the rest of us

[Gonoff]

The majority of us did not have money to spare for Macs. I have no doubt that they were the best personal computers around. I used them.

For less expensive computers, there was the BASIC interpreter. Not as WYSIWYG or simple and Beginners need to think when coding, even at that level. It also had the advantage of being close to a standard untill MS teurned it into QBasic then dumped it.

BASIC is what we need again but standardised and improved a lot.

Re:For the rest of us

[hairyfeet]

I'll get hate by the "programmers" but I'd argue that what we need is more along the lines of another VB 6 which is what TFA seems to be advocating. The "programmers" can scream all they want but VB with Access did one job and did it VERY well which was allowing anybody to build single function programs quickly and easily. VB code was very human readable, with an "if this then that" kind of structure that most can grasp without effort and with an Access DB being so butt simple to hook up it was insanely easy to develop programs that could input, store, and manipulate data which I've found those that actually need to make tools as opposed to COTS is job #1.

With VB 6 plus Access one can whip off a program in a few hours to do anything from store and retrieve a customer's order history to a CD/DVD catalog program to a program I banged out in a weekend several years ago for a junkyard which allows them to keep up with what cars are on their property and what condition they are in. Last I heard they are still using that and I really can't blame 'em, I still use a VB 6 plus Access program for DVD cataloging as its insanely fast (much faster than a similar program using XML), runs on pretty much anything, and is low on resources, all of which I'd argue you really need in a programming language for laypeople who have no idea about code optimization.

Great idea

[cdwiegand]

I learned to program with both BASIC and HyperCard, depending on which machine I was on at the time, back when I was younger. I think it's a great idea. I built simple "database" simulations, using nothing more than the free stuff that came with it, and it helped to mold my initial approach to programming. I even created a testing program we used at my high school for a couple of my teachers that was ran over a network. It was fun AND useful.

Its built in language is called "Grundle"?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm intrigued by the idea of LiveCode, but are you serious about its built-in language being called "Grundle"?

I can't go to my boss and suggest the use of LiveCode if it has a name like that. For anyone who doesn't know, grundle refers to the area between a man's anus and scrotum.

The Coq Proof Assistant project has a similar problem. This software would be seriously useful at work, but we can't be sitting in meetings with passersby hearing us saying what they hear as cock (as in a long, thick, throbbing penis) for hours on end. We also can't go to customers and say stuff that they'd hear like, "Don't worry, our cock has verified it."

Re:Uh... haven't you heard of LiveCode?

[gslj]

LiveCode is great in many ways, and I really appreciate that it is now a free download, but it lacks one feature that really made a difference to people who were learning HyperCard. In Livecode, every object is its own layer. In HyperCard, there was a simple, useful distinction between the background layer and the card (foreground) layer. People quickly grasped how to make a picture or button show up on every card or just one. Now, if you google "livecode background layers," you're likely to get instructions to add a background to a single card. I hate to say it, but I don't think that LiveCode, even free, can build the same kind of community that HyperCard has...simply because of this choice. It's not a trivial difference.

-Gareth